A Navy warship burned while commanders argued over who was in charge

This situation clearly shows a serious problem in the US Navy -- but the real problem isn't between the buck-passing and responsibility-dodging at the three-star level.

The more serious problem is that the question of "establishing a chain-of-command to coordinate the firefighting efforts" ever became a three-star issue. In fact it should never have become a question at all.

I understand why the military refuses to utilize the Incident Command System that the entire rest of the country uses at all levels (and that is mandated by federal law). After all, concepts like "unity of command" and "management by objectives" (another name for Mission Type Orders) are simply too difficult for the military to comprehend.

BUT how did the Navy have a port facility used to conduct major repairs that had NO PLAN for the possibility that there could be some sort of emergency and that a fire was one of the most likely emergencies that might happen???

The on-scene response to the fire should have never involved anyone at the 3-star level. The question of who the ship belongs to should not have had anything to do with the on-scene response -- the ship belonged to the US Navy but it was in port. Firefighting is something the port should have had a comprehensive plan to accomplish. One small part of that plan should have been knowing who to call with a simple message "Sir, One of your ships is on fire. We'll call you back when the fire is put out."

S.N.A.F.U.

I love it! Some things never change! I was in the Army from 1971-1980. Same exact “ chain of command “ in the Army.